[VRRP] vrrpv3 with global IPv6

Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp> Fri, 30 July 2010 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp>
X-Original-To: vrrp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vrrp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6303A698E for <vrrp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.308, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vDB6MZSV3xUL for <vrrp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp [202.32.8.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC343A698A for <vrrp@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.160]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id o6UCgVnm014923; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:42:31 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id o6UCgVx29383; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:42:31 +0900 (JST)
Received: from bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.82.141.45]) by mailsv.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id o6UCgUjq017793; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:42:30 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id o6UCgUVE007318; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:42:30 +0900
Received: from mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (bgsx5626.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.18.151.10]) (envelope-from kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp) by mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/10031711) with ESMTP id o6UCgUXi013622 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:42:30 +0900
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (edonet065.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.19.137.65]) (authenticated bits=0) (envelope-from kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp) by mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/10031711) with ESMTP id o6UCgUtu002003 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:42:30 +0900
Message-ID: <4C52C8B5.8080601@mesh.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:42:29 +0900
From: Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vrrp@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: randy@psg.com, narten@us.ibm.com, brian@innovationslab.net
Subject: [VRRP] vrrpv3 with global IPv6
X-BeenThere: vrrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol <vrrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp>
List-Post: <mailto:vrrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:42:09 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I've been discussing this with a few people this week
and thought that it was worth asking this list.

rfc5798 says in section 5.2.9

   For IPv6, the first address must be the IPv6 link-local address
   associated with the virtual router.

It implies that a global address can be associated
with the virtual router, but some routers
implement link-local capability only becuase only the
link-local address is mentioned here.

The problem is, operators need global scope addresses with
virtual routers and we have to ask each vendor to
implement it if they have not already done so. The main
reason we need this is becausewe need to monitor the address
from a remote network as we do with IPv4.

I just joined this list, but can someone
tell me what was the thinking was  behind not
mentioning global addresses in this RFC?

Thank you

Regards,
Seiichi

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkxSyLQACgkQcrhTYfxyMkJ4pgCfZ5DpajEGgTZiq9RIO/pvaaH9
88YAoIX2zvY6S8dx2vsLEjd6kHcZqEQ+
=iuSh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----